What is Trivial objections fallacy?

The problem with trivial objections is that they leave the central thesis largely untouched. It is fallacious to oppose a contention on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than giving an answer to the main claim which it makes.

I am totally opposed to the new road around the town. It will make all of our town maps out of date.
(It is rare for the fate of a new road to be decided on the basis of what it does to the maps. That said, however, one cannot help noticing that the maps show that towns reach very strange decisions on such matters.)

The fallacy is akin to that of the straw man. Instead of facing the main opponent, in this case it is only a few aspects of it which are confronted. The trivial objections are possibly valid; the point is that they are also trivial, and not adequate to the work of demolishing the case which is presented. The fallacy is com-mitted because they are not up to the task to which they are assigned, not because they are erroneous.

We cannot countenance any involvement in a land war in Europe. Think of what it might do to the supply of long-life milk from the continent.
(Integrity, honour and glory sometimes seem pretty trivial reasons -but long-life milk…)

Associate membership of the European Union, when it was known as the European Economic Community, was, however, rejected by a British prime minister as ‘beneath our dignity’.

Trivial objections tend to appear when the central thrust of the argument is difficult to oppose. Very often they make their appearance as practical difficulties put in the way of a popular proposal.

Although banning cars from the High Street will severely hit trade at my own store, I would still go along with the majority but for one thing. We do not have a single sign-writer in the area who could make up the necessary road signs.

It is often difficult to oppose the democratic process without appearing to be undemocratic. The fallacy of trivial objections permits a combination of readiness to accept the idea with hostility to any practical proposal. Elections can be opposed because of the paperwork involved. Referenda, while good in principle, can be opposed on grounds of cost.

Of course we, as teachers, would like the parents to have the final say on this; but there just isn't a hall big enough for such a meeting.
(A meeting of teachers who really favoured the proposal could meanwhile be held in the store-cupboard.)

When you are searching for trivial objections with which to do down ideas which are difficult to oppose head-on, you can always drag up objections from highly unlikely hypothetical situations.

Yes, vicar, I would like to come to church more regularly. But suppose the house caught fire one Sunday morning while I was away?
(Why, it would then become another flaming excuse, like this one.)

If you dwell on your objections, listing them and showing how each one is valid, your audience will be impressed more by their weight of numbers than by their lack of substance.

I too like the idea of extending choice by having vending machines in trains, but there are eight objections. First, how would passengers manage to get the right coins for them? Second…
(Very good, so long as you never mention the real objection, which is that they would enable people to bypass failures in the existing service. Stick to the trivia; it's safer ground.)